Now before any American starts to criticize the title, read this first.

Remember when Trump said during his campaign that he will ban all muslims entering the U.S. and everyone, including Trump supporters, didn't took that seriously, nothing but a marketing ploy to pander more voters? Well, it has become a reality folks.

Don't judge a book by its cover, or in this case the title. It specifically targets Muslim countries, restricting immigrants from those nations to enter the U.S and it does not address any foreign terrorism. To see the greater picture first, let's first list some facts about the terrorism on America..

While this fact only holds from 2001 to 2015 (2016 changed it) death by terrorism in total is but a fraction of the gun related issue (though I am not going into gun control any further).

2. [url]The majority of terrorism in the U.S. mediated by muslim extremists are not foreigners.[/url]

Notice the last statement I wrote previously about 2001 to 2005 that more americans have died from right wing groups rather than muslims, well thanks to the Orlando shooting in 2016 has changed that. But still, the deaths by muslim terrorists is just 1/3 of a percent of the total homicides in the U.S. but besides that, the Orlando shooting was a 29-year-old New York-born American citizen and Florida resident, not a foreign-born radical.

The executive order lists countries from which the immigrants are restricted to enter the U.S. , but non of the foreign terrorists that have caused trouble in America are from these countries. There are known muslim terrorists that came from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt but these are not on the list.

You would think that this order has almost nothing to do with countering terrorism, and you would be right. This has worse implications. It is specifically a muslim ban act, just like Trump had promised before. Now Trump will not admit that this is a muslim-ban act nor his supporters, but this is betrayed by a loop hole in the executive order wherein it says

"Upon the resumption of USRAP [US Refugee Admissions Program] admissions, the secretary of state, in consultation with the secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality."

Notice that the people of religious minority are not restricted from entering the U.S. and since the religious majority in the countries are muslim, this act is effectively saying that "fellow christians are welcome, but you muslims are not getting in our country". And Trump has freudianly admitted this with his interview on the Christian broadcasting network, that he prioritizes to help non-muslim refugees, specifically those that are christian.

You cannot get any further from the first amendment. I am not an American and you may be wondering why I care what America does, but this just outrages me. I know enough about America's history that it was founded by and for people who were refugees, escaping religious persecution in Europe, because the government established religious freedom. This is the exact thing that made America great. It is simply ironic (not in the fun way) that the president of the U.S. , who frequently said that he would make his nation great again, is now doing the exact opposite. Countering the very thing that made the U.S. great.

If a country is now restricting people from entering the country based on religion.....it is not a country I would call"land of the free"

If a country is so afraid of something perceived to be foreign, which is hardly a threat when compared to real threats that come from within its very own nation, such that it is willing to sacrifice its foundational principles of freedom....it is not a country I would call "home of the brave"

If you are an American, wether you voted for Trump or Hilary or loved or hated Obama, it doesn't matter in this case. If you know this is wrong, take this as an advice and stop your president from doing shit like this. Let him read what is written on the statue of liberty.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." Charles Darwin

Nesslig20 wrote:Remember when Trump said during his campaign that he will ban all muslims entering the U.S. and everyone, including Trump supporters, didn't took that seriously, nothing but a marketing ploy to pander more voters? Well, it has become a reality folks.

I personally know dozens of people that did not think this was a joke and were perfectly fine with it. They are cheering now that Trump is actually following through with this promise. They are also pro-waterboarding, wall., and pro-"opening up the libal laws". Do not pretend that my fellow countrymen have read The Constitution or The Bill of Rights of this great land. Here is something to supplement my anecdote.

Nesslig20 wrote:If you are an American, wether you voted for Trump or Hilary or loved or hated Obama, it doesn't matter in this case. If you know this is wrong, take this as an advice and stop your president from doing shit like this. Let him read what is written on the statue of liberty.

Another America bashing post on the Internet, couldn't even wait 2 weeks into his presidency and then you attack him and the entire country... Okay, let's see what you have to say and maybe we'll clarify a few things.

Nesslig20 wrote:Remember when Trump said during his campaign that he will ban all muslims entering the U.S. and everyone, including Trump supporters, didn't took that seriously, nothing but a marketing ploy to pander more voters? Well, it has become a reality folks.

No it hasn't, the executive order applies only for 7 countries out of the 50+ Muslim majority countries and it is only a temporary measure for a few months. Those countries are:

IranIraqLibyaSomaliaSudanSyriaYemen

The measure applies to exactly 0 Muslims who are citizens of the US or citizens of nations not on that list. Regardless of Trump's intent, to call it a "Muslim ban" is nothing short of hysterical. The Obama administration already recognized these 7 countries as terrorist havens or state sponsors of terrorism, which let's face it they are. Even if it were an indefinite ban, given that it's not a law it would be easily repealed by the next president. An actual law would be much more difficult to repeal.

Now, I supported Trump during the election, I still support Trump, I like that he puts his countrymen first, but this is a pretty toothless measure compared to what could be done, although not unwelcomed as far as I'm concerned. Maybe Trump will include more countries who knows, this is more than the 2 previous presidents have done at least which have been very ineffective in this "War on Terror". So I'll give him credit at least for that.

I find it very telling that you make such a big case over a largely toothless order and then attack the ENTIRE US for supposedly being unfree and cowardly, but you make no case at all about how most Muslim majority countries treat non-Muslims or for that matter their own immigration policies which often bar Christians and atheists from settling. I don't see a single leftist out protesting the Saudi Arabian or the UAE embassy for their PERMANENT and COMPLETE "non-Muslim ban" on immigration. I don't see any leftist protesting how Iran treats Christian minorities. Maybe if you get your priorities straight you might actually win the next election, there's a reason why the term "regressive left" was coined.

Nesslig20 wrote:What I am going to write here is mostly the same as in this video by Vox. But I will also add my own opinion about this later on. As you already are aware, Trump has signed an executive order misleadingly called "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States"

Far from misleading considering that these are countries with serious terrorism problems. In fact the most dangerous and largest terrorist organization, the Islamic State, resides in and controls large portions of Syria and Iraq, 2/7 countries on the list.

Like it or not, we are at war. The stupidest thing you can do in a war is to invite foreign nationals from the enemy country to permanently settle in yours. You never know where their loyalties lie and polls have shown over the years an alarming level of support for terrorism or at the very least for a system based on Sharia law, both of which are a threat to the USA. Why on Earth should we risk inviting the same threat we are fighting overseas?

Trump was elected by American citizens to be POTUS, as such he represents American interests. Not Syrian interests, not Merkel's interests, not anyone else's.

Nesslig20 wrote:Don't judge a book by its cover, or in this case the title. It specifically targets Muslim countries, restricting immigrants from those nations to enter the U.S and it does not address any foreign terrorism. To see the greater picture first, let's first list some facts about the terrorism on America..

Again, all those countries are terrorist hot spots and have serious stability problems. Maybe Iran less, but that is an adversary and a state sponsor of terrorism. You know what I tend to do with people that I'm not on friendly terms with? I keep a distance. That works for countries too. No reason to fight all the time, but no reason to embrace each other either. Many conflicts are solved by that. Ever heard of restraining orders? They're wonderful.

It's not even possible to vet any potential refugees or immigrants coming from those countries. Honestly, how are you going to accomplish that? Let's take Syria for example? Are you going to ask Assad nicely? That doesn't work. I doubt even he knows since there is no extensive database of all terrorists that ever existed and he doesn't even have control of the country fully anymore. There are plenty of other concerns that I don't even have time to go into, but as long as you can't even answer this question, it's a moot point.

Nesslig20 wrote:1. The majority of the death toll caused by terrorism in the U.S. does not stem from Muslim extremism (well at least until 2015).

So you interpret facts to suit your narrative by conveniently choosing periods of time with low incidence of Islamic terrorism within a conveniently chosen territory? Anyone can make any problem seem minor by doing that. I'm not buying it.

Nesslig20 wrote:It turns out that since 9/11 until 2015, the 48% of the deaths caused by terrorism were killed by white supremacists, antigovernment fanatics, neo-nazi's and other non-Muslim extremists.

Please explain to me why you have chosen 12th Sept. 2001 - 31st Dec. 2014 as your time frame to assess the risk of Islamic terrorism? This is totally disingenuous. What happened before and after until the present day is just as relevant. I would even argue you need to go back as far as at least a regular human lifespan. Maybe beyond that you can claim it's irrelevant since most people involved are no longer alive.

Also why limit it to the US? You do realize that Islamic terrorism affects American citizens living abroad as well as American allies such as NATO members, thereby harming American economic interests. So Trump has every right to be concerned about that as well. The USA is literally billions if not trillions (depending on how you look at the War on Terror) of dollars poorer because of the impact of Islamic terrorism which is a global phenomenon. Disorganized lone wolves in the US do not make that impact. The impact that say a nut like Elliot Rodger makes is not even remotely comparable.

Furthermore, just because America has its own terrorists doesn't mean it needs to be reckless and import more. You can't deport your Elliot Rodgers and your Dylan Roofs. You can however prevent new ones from coming in.

Nesslig20 wrote: Whereas 26% were done by self-proclaimed Jihadists. In fact, from 2001 to 2015, twice as many americans have died from attacks by white right-wing groups than by muslim extremists.

Aside from how flawed that analysis is as I have pointed out, 26% being Islamic terrorism is grossly disproportionate when you factor in that only 1% of the US population is Muslim.

It's even more disproportionate when you factor in the countless foiled terrorist plots that if successful would have had mass casualties. You do realize that countless law enforcement resources are spent to do this? They are not free nor unlimited.

Nesslig20 wrote: While this fact only holds from 2001 to 2015 (2016 changed it) death by terrorism in total is but a fraction of the gun related issue (though I am not going into gun control any further).

Totally different issue. Gun ownership is a right in the US for US citizens. Immigration is not and since there are only limited spots available, it's entirely justified that American officials would want to be extremely selective about it. Most of the 6.7 billion on the planet will never emigrate to the US anyway. Who cares? It's not a right. If it were, it wouldn't work since you would have to allow the entire planet in.

Nesslig20 wrote:2. [url]The majority of terrorism in the U.S. mediated by muslim extremists are not foreigners.[/url]

Notice the last statement I wrote previously about 2001 to 2005 that more americans have died from right wing groups rather than muslims, well thanks to the Orlando shooting in 2016 has changed that. But still, the deaths by muslim terrorists is just 1/3 of a percent of the total homicides in the U.S. but besides that, the Orlando shooting was a 29-year-old New York-born American citizen and Florida resident, not a foreign-born radical.

The Orlando shooter was born in the US, yes that is true. His parents were not and weren't "moderates" either. They should have never had a path to the US in the first place.

Nice of you to leave out that fact.

Nesslig20 wrote:While most american muslims are immigrants, but immigrants are underrepresented among muslim extremists. Most of them are instead converts (muslims with a non-muslim background).

People can convert so immigration restrictions won't fully fix the issue, but they will solve a good chunk of it.

Also I contest your premise. Many of these Muslims terrorists, and let's assume for the sake of argument that they were are ALL fully American at least several generations down the line, are acting on orders from AQ or the Islamic State that they got through the Internet. I hold the people who give the orders just as much responsible for those who carry or attempt to carry it out. Baghdadi and all his top goons deserve to pay for every single attack that was ever carried out by the IS or "inspired" by the IS.

Nesslig20 wrote:The executive order lists countries from which the immigrants are restricted to enter the U.S. , but non of the foreign terrorists that have caused trouble in America are from these countries. There are known muslim terrorists that came from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt but these are not on the list.

A fair point so... what is it that you want exactly? Should he be more or less firm? Then again we're not even 2 weeks into his presidency so give him some slack. None of the other candidates would have ever done even 10% of what he did, with the possible exception of Ted Cruz.

Personally I think Saudi Arabia deserves to be first on the list, but strategically speaking it might make sense to first change energy policy and then burn bridges with them. If it were up to me I'd put an immigration rather than travel ban for the time being with Saudi Arabia. After a while I would consider the travel ban too. Then again, I'm not the president and nobody is paying me to be a statesman so...

Nesslig20 wrote:Notice that the people of religious minority are not restricted from entering the U.S. and since the religious majority in the countries are muslim, this act is effectively saying that "fellow christians are welcome, but you muslims are not getting in our country". And Trump has freudianly admitted this with his interview on the Christian broadcasting network, that he prioritizes to help non-muslim refugees, specifically those that are christian.

Well then you haven't understood the point.

The reason why Christian and other minority refugees should be prioritized is because they are actually persecuted in these 7 countries for being Christian or whatever. There are no Muslims persecuted in these countries simply for being Muslim.

Do not confuse a secular government with a government that simply ignores reality. Not the same thing.

Nesslig20 wrote:Notice that the people of religious minority are not restricted from entering the U.S. and since the religious majority in the countries are muslim, this act is effectively saying that "fellow christians are welcome, but you muslims are not getting in our country". And Trump has freudianly admitted this with his interview on the Christian broadcasting network, that he prioritizes to help non-muslim refugees, specifically those that are christian.

You cannot get any further from the first amendment. I am not an American and you may be wondering why I care what America does, but this just outrages me. I know enough about America's history that it was founded by and for people who were refugees, escaping religious persecution in Europe, because the government established religious freedom. This is the exact thing that made America great. It is simply ironic (not in the fun way) that the president of the U.S. , who frequently said that he would make his nation great again, is now doing the exact opposite. Countering the very thing that made the U.S. great.

If a country is now restricting people from entering the country based on religion.....it is not a country I would call"land of the free"

Nobody is restricting people from entering the US based on religion, but based on legitimate political concerns and issues with integrating certain groups of people into American society.

The ban doesn't mention Muslims, only citizens from 7 countries and even if it outright said "Immigration will be suspended for anyone who identifies with the Islamic religion", it would still not be unconstitutional because:

1. The Constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens living outside US soil2. The Constitution protects only "free exercise" of religion, not ALL exercise of religion, just like the "free market" that doesn't literally mean a market without any rules. It simply means you're free to trade as long as you don't coerce or defraud other people. Given that Islam is both a religion and a supremacist and expansionist political system, I don't believe that the religious aspects provide cover for the political ones2. There is no right to emigrate to the US3. The president has authority by law to suspend immigration for any reason and I quote:

Section 212(f) of the INA wrote:Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

Like, literally if the president wanted to ban all non-citizens born on a Tuesday with blonde hair dyed pink because reasons... he could do that. It would be weird and random as hell but not unconstitutional.

Nesslig20 wrote:If a country is so afraid of something perceived to be foreign,

Nobody is afraid of Islam because it's "foreign", plenty of foreign imports that Americans don't fear so that's just a bold faced lie intended to shut down any conversation. They fear its supremacist doctrines against women, non-Muslims and many more as well as its doctrinal mandate to expand and dominate the world by force if necessary. Also it's not even about fear, certainly not an unjustified one considering the untold loss of life and economic loss including for foiled plots due to a bad immigration policy that allows people who hate America and its values and way of life to come in.

Europe would be wise to take notice too. It's only gotten worse and it's going to get worse with the kind of policies the eurocrats have in place.

Nesslig20 wrote:which is hardly a threat when compared to real threats that come from within its very own nation, such that it is willing to sacrifice its foundational principles of freedom....it is not a country I would call "home of the brave"

As I've explained you might be able to make that claim for Muslim citizens of the US, although I would argue that political Islamic propaganda is not be protected by the 1st amendment for pretty much the same reason plotting to rob a bank isn't even if you never set foot within 100 miles of that same bank. Plotting to commit something illegal such as overthrowing the US government in order to create a Sharia system is not free speech, it's sedition and should be treated as such. Scroll back to my comments about free exercise of religion and free markets.

For non-citizens, it's a moot point. The government can deny a visa for any or no reason.

And finally we reach the end of your point which isn't a good one either. Aside from the fact that this is just a poem and has no actual legal bearing...

Key words here:yearningtobreathefree - which implies a certain level of affinity for the American freedoms and way of life

NOT yearning to one day implement a Sharia based totalitarian government and maybe commit some violence along the way to achieve that goal

Granted some Syrian refugees are moderate and probably do "yearn to breathe free" their adherence to a supremacist system and the fact that they've been raised in a regressive culture for 20+ years that is the exact opposite of the US makes it impossible to tell who is a genuine moderate and who will try to subvert the US and its values from within. Put simply, there is no way to trust them, no way to vet them and no guarantee that their own children won't turn to extremism 30 years down the line.

Taking in refugees isn't the solution. The solution is safe zones in Syria. If you want to help so badly, do it in their own countries. Then if after the war they are serious about emulating a free society, they can replicate the US system in Syria. The blueprint is already out there. But I don't think that's what most of them way. The failed Arab Spring and the Pew Global polls have shown this. These are not cultures suitable for a democracy and there are countless problems with integrating large numbers of Muslims in non-Muslim nations.

I'll leave you with this quote:

KWONG HAI CHEW v. COLDING et al. THE SIR JOHN FRANKLIN wrote:The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores.

Trump's ban, however toothless or incomplete, is perfectly constitutional and it should be expanded indefinitely and to include more countries. Why the hell should the US admit the very same people fought overseas? At least we finally have a president willing to understand that the problem isn't some nebulous "violent extremism" but the Islamic ideology itself and its regressive values.

Last edited by Tree on Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Nesslig20 wrote:Notice that the people of religious minority are not restricted from entering the U.S. and since the religious majority in the countries are muslim, this act is effectively saying that "fellow christians are welcome, but you muslims are not getting in our country". And Trump has freudianly admitted this with his interview on the Christian broadcasting network, that he prioritizes to help non-muslim refugees, specifically those that are christian.

Well then you haven't understood the point.

The reason why Christian and other minority refugees should be prioritized is because they are actually persecuted in these 7 countries for being Christian or whatever. There are no Muslims persecuted in these countries simply for being Muslim.

Do not confuse a secular government with a government that simply ignores reality. Not the same thing.

Actually, discriminating on the bases of religion is one of the reasons the ACLU is sueing them. If I understood correctly as well, that was one of the reasons why there is a stay on this ban as well.

he_who_is_nobody, that doesn't mean they will win the lawsuit, as I have pointed out, it's not that simple and regardless of Trump's intention the words "Muslim ban" or any variations of that do not appear anywhere in the order anyway. And personally I don't believe intentions matter all that much compared to what you actually do.

That said, do you believe that Christians, atheists, Muslims whatever in Syria are all equally persecuted on the basis of their beliefs? Because Muslims in Syria, certainly not Sunni Muslims, are not persecuted for being Muslim. Christians are for being Christian. Atheists and others maybe even worse. This isn't about "establishing a religion" this is about accepting the reality on the ground there which is two wolves and one sheep choosing what to have for dinner.

The whole point of a refugee system is that you shelter people who face persecution in their own country and have a well founded fear of staying there. I know there's a war and it's not pleasant for anyone, but being in a minority religious conviction is way more dangerous right now. You really need to read up on some reports about what is happening to religious minorities there where they're being basically cleansed from the land.

The order also doesn't mention "Christian" last time I checked, just minority religion so it's very neutral, unless you want to argue that there's somehow a persecution of Muslims for being Muslims in these Muslim majority countries and it's equally as bad as what the Christians are facing. Maybe some Alawites will be able to argue their case too. Shouldn't the people most in danger be given prio in a system designed to help people in danger? Makes sense to me.

It also makes sense not to bring in people who can't be properly vetted and no they shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt if the risk is that they will take up arms against the United States once allowed in. The US is a generous country but it shouldn't put its own civilians at risk to help others. Trump was ultimately elected to represent the interests of Americans, not Syrians. At best that is secondary out of the kindness of American hearts. It's not something he MUST do. You can attack his provision legally if you want, but all will happen if Trump continues his commitment to safeguard US citizens from ISIS and other jihadist infiltration into the US is that Trump will re-issue a similar order with a total ban on refugees from these countries so nobody can even remotely complain that it unfairly advantages non-Muslims. So then, instead of MAYBE saving some Christians, nobody gets in because the ACLU would rather be in denial about the reality of the threat we're facing and pretend that something is not what it evidently is. There are no winners here.

It's ironic too, these are the SAME people who constantly lecture us that blacks in the US are treated so badly by white people, today, in 2017, that the only way to fix it is yet more affirmative action programs. it's worth pointing out that blacks, PRE-60's civil rights, were not facing the level of persecution that Christians face in Syria and many of these countries today. In Syria Christians face mass murder, mass rape and if they're lucky extortionate protection taxes, all done by ISIS and even by the non-ISIS Muslim rebels. It is a clear and direct danger, none of this nebulous "institutional" or "implicit bias" mumbo jumbo. It's actually a massacre.

I don't want to get into a debate about it, I'm just pointing out the inconsistency of wanting affirmative action for blacks because of "implicit bias" (a highly disputed concept) but refusing preference in refugee programs for religious minorities in proven danger of extermination.

Yup, Trump is an idiot. And he wants to turn the US into Saudi Arabia or Iran. The irony.

If you make that comparison you prove that you don't understand how Saudi Arabia and Iran's political systems actually work.

Or America's for that matter. America was not a theocracy even before it. Totally hysterical.

The Johnson Amendment simply prohibits non-profit organizations (501(c)(3) as they are called) from opposing or endorsing political candidates, that's it.

So yes churches would be able to endorse a candidate otherwise (doesn't mean he wins, they're not literally voting on your behalf so they can't override the will of the people), but so can militant atheist organizations, so can Anita Sarkeesian and her crazy far left organization. It's all balanced out just as before and just as it is now.

Tree wrote:he_who_is_nobody, that doesn't mean they will win the lawsuit, as I have pointed out, it's not that simple and regardless of Trump's intention the words "Muslim ban" or any variations of that do not appear anywhere in the order anyway. And personally I don't believe intentions matter all that much compared to what you actually do.

Just pointing out the facts. Actual constitutional lawyers thought it was worth suing over and a judge used it as part of their reasoning for the stay.

Tree wrote:That said, do you believe that Christians, atheists, Muslims whatever in Syria are all equally persecuted on the basis of their beliefs? Because Muslims in Syria, certainly not Sunni Muslims, are not persecuted for being Muslim. Christians are for being Christian. Atheists and others maybe even worse. This isn't about "establishing a religion" this is about accepting the reality on the ground there which is two wolves and one sheep choosing what to have for dinner.

Tree wrote:The whole point of a refugee system is that you shelter people who face persecution in their own country and have a well founded fear of staying there. I know there's a war and it's not pleasant for anyone, but being in a minority religious conviction is way more dangerous right now. You really need to read up on some reports about what is happening to religious minorities there where they're being basically cleansed from the land.

Please provide the citations. In addition, Sunni Muslims would not see the other Muslims as "True Muslims", thus they would be in the same boat. Beyond that, does that mean you think we should take in refugees if we could sort out the Muslims?

Tree wrote:The order also doesn't mention "Christian" last time I checked, just minority religion so it's very neutral, unless you want to argue that there's somehow a persecution of Muslims for being Muslims in these Muslim majority countries and it's equally as bad as what the Christians are facing. Maybe some Alawites will be able to argue their case too. Shouldn't the people most in danger be given prio in a system designed to help people in danger? Makes sense to me.

Tree wrote:It also makes sense not to bring in people who can't be properly vetted and no they shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt if the risk is that they will take up arms against the United States once allowed in. The US is a generous country but it shouldn't put its own civilians at risk to help others.

Tree wrote:Trump was ultimately elected to represent the interests of Americans, not Syrians. At best that is secondary out of the kindness of American hearts. It's not something he MUST do. You can attack his provision legally if you want, but all will happen if Trump continues his commitment to safeguard US citizens from ISIS and other jihadist infiltration into the US is that Trump will re-issue a similar order with a total ban on refugees from these countries so nobody can even remotely complain that it unfairly advantages non-Muslims. So then, instead of MAYBE saving some Christians, nobody gets in because the ACLU would rather be in denial about the reality of the threat we're facing and pretend that something is not what it evidently is. There are no winners here.

Tree wrote:It's ironic too, these are the SAME people who constantly lecture us that blacks in the US are treated so badly by white people, today, in 2017, that the only way to fix it is yet more affirmative action programs. it's worth pointing out that blacks, PRE-60's civil rights, were not facing the level of persecution that Christians face in Syria and many of these countries today. In Syria Christians face mass murder, mass rape and if they're lucky extortionate protection taxes, all done by ISIS and even by the non-ISIS Muslim rebels. It is a clear and direct danger, none of this nebulous "institutional" or "implicit bias" mumbo jumbo. It's actually a massacre.

Again, citations would be nice.

Tree wrote:I don't want to get into a debate about it, I'm just pointing out the inconsistency of wanting affirmative action for blacks because of "implicit bias" (a highly disputed concept) but refusing preference in refugee programs for religious minorities in proven danger of extermination.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Just pointing out the facts. Actual constitutional lawyers thought it was worth suing over and a judge used it as part of their reasoning for the stay.

ACLU lawyers are not by any means agenda free. Nothing wrong with having an agenda, but you should disclose it rather than pretend to be objective and totally non-partisan. People can then make up their own minds who's correct or not, but they're not by any means a reliable authority. Do your own homework. For example I'm right-wing. Somewhere on that spectrum anyway, not really a cookie cutter though. ACLU are far left, ("progressive" if you prefer that term) yet they aren't identified as such, they don't identify themselves as such in fact they deny it, so they always come across as impartial and an absolute authority on all the issues they talk about.

Here is an article for example sympathetic to illegal immigration and endorsing the idea that calling illegal immigrants illegal immigrants is somehow wrong. This is not the kind of stuff a non-partisan would write. In fact the idea that borders aren't important is a very far left view.

Numerous international human rights documents firmly estab­lish the principle that no human being can be “illegal”

The ACLU holds to the narrative that the problems in the US black community are exclusively or predominantly inflicted by a racist system keeping them down for example through disproportionate incarceration. Again this is not a universal and non-partisan view, it's a leftist view. And frankly I think it's a racism of low expectations but that's a topic for another time. The point is it's not agenda free.

The ACLU supports gay marriage, supports abortion in all circumstances, even supports polygamy. These are positions of the left. Even if you agree with them, or somewhat agree with them you have to admit that these are not neutral stances to take and it's widely disputed that these are protected by the Constitution. Even the Supreme Court couldn't pass it with unanimous votes and then you have to factor in that some judges also have an agenda so they will interpret parts of the Constitution in a way that the founders never intended it to be interpreted.

Curiously the ACLU never fights for property rights or the free market, being able to run your business as you see fit provided you aren't scamming or hurting people and keeping most of the money you earn by ensuring taxes stay low.

The ACLU is against the 2nd amendment and doesn't believe you have the right to own a gun.

Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right.

And yes they unironically have a page called "DEFENDING YOUR RIGHTS". Not your gun rights though.

Moving on...

The stay only applies to people with valid visas who were flying in just as Trump signed the executive order. That's maybe a bit of a gray area. The order is still in place though. So if you haven't boarded a flight by now, you're way out of luck for the next few months.

The stay is only a partial block to the broader executive order, with the judge stopping short of a broader ruling on its constitutionality.

ISIS and similar groups have killed large a number of Muslims, but not necessarily because they're Muslim rather because they're simply in the way to power. Unless they're not Sunni I guess, so okay I would agree with that, they probably do kill a lot of Shia. Which also leads to the question of why the hell isn't Iran expected to take them in? They would feel right at home since it would be a more compatible culture to resettle in.

Most victims of Chinese communists were Chinese. They weren't trying to exterminate their own people though, they just wanted control over the country so they had to terrorize and kill dissidents. They also had really bad agricultural policies.

Please provide the citations.

You should already be informed about the persecution of Christians in the Middle East it's been known about for years and this borders on genocide denial.

And if you don't like Breitbart, you can follow the other links over there and run it into the google translator.

Two-thirds of the Syrian Christians have left the country, deplored Wednesday in Geneva the Chaldean bishop of Aleppo, Monsignor Antoine Audo, at a press conference at the UN headquarters in Geneva.

In total, Syrian Christians have grown from 1.5 million to some 500,000 in five years of conflict, he added.In Aleppo, the second city of Syria devastated by the fighting, there were 160,000 and there are only 40,000. These Christians are gathered in the areas controlled by the government, according to him.

A majority of Syrians are still in favor of President Bashar al-Assad who deserves "respect," added the Chaldean Bishop of Aleppo, who is convinced that a solution can not be imposed from outside. According to him, 80% of all the Christians of the country would support President Assad in case of reelection."Even the Sunnis would vote Assad," he added, pointing out that Christians "are not persecuted."

In front of the press, Bishop Audo denounced the "Western propaganda" against Bashar al-Assad that it does not however disclaim any responsibility. But according to him, "armed groups do not have the support of the people"."Syria must continue with or without Bashar al-Assad," he said. The three cathedrals of Aleppo were almost completely destroyed and hundreds of people were abducted and then released into Chaldean villages.

In Aleppo, the truce in force since February 27 has allowed "some relief" and to bring water and electricity that had been missing for about six months. Come to Geneva for a peace campaign launched by Caritas, Bishop Audo, who is also president of Caritas Syria, was to meet with the president of the UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria Paulo Sergio Pinheiro.

It should be noted that those who didn't pay or couldn't pay were killed. In any case, convert, pay up or be killed isn't a meaningful choice.

Also, not hard to google "Christian persecution in Syria" or Iraq or whatever your place of interest is. This is the first and last time I'm doing your homework.

In addition, Sunni Muslims would not see the other Muslims as "True Muslims", thus they would be in the same boat. Beyond that, does that mean you think we should take in refugees if we could sort out the Muslims?

The only problem is that there is no way to sort them out and America has already had problems with integrating Muslims given the disproportionate terrorism coming from that community. It's a huge cultural gap that will probably never be closed in our life time.

Also it's just not realistic to take them all in. If they're that numerous and they're serious about combating ISIS, surely they can fight them back? Christians don't even have the numbers to fight back and both ISIS and non-ISIS rebels hate them. They're screwed.

The vetting process can only search for information already known - which is limited and even harder to access since Assad has no incentive to provide America that information. Remember, we've made an enemy out of him because in Obama's infinite brilliance he decided that Assad has to go, even though he's actually not a jihadist, he's just a dictator keeping the jihadists in check from completely taking over Syria. So why do you think he's going to give you any information that is accurate to help you sort out moderates from extremists? As if that's even possible, he doesn't even know it all himself, he ain't omniscient. And what about people who maybe aren't terrorists but would like a Sharia based system. Totally incompatible with the American way of life. Sharia law is the exact opposite of the Constitution. In order to have social cohesion you need at least some common values as well as loyalty to the country.

Also compare homicide rates within Germany vs. homicide rates within Syria or Iraq. What makes you believe that bringing in millions of refugees with virtually no filter as Germany has done not skew the crime rates when you're moving large groups from high crime countries to lower crime countries? Especially when many of them won't even get a job since they're barely literate in their own language. What's your alternative? A permanent class of 1 million welfare dependent people? That's not fair and it's even worse if you do that in America which isn't based on being dependent on government but about bettering yourself through your own means. People don't suddenly change just because they move from one geographical region to another. Bad habits, regressive attitudes, hatred of Christians, Jews and everyone else you're importing all of that too when you have no filter and no way to make one. You think people from two totally opposite cultures with opposite value systems are totally interchangeable but they're not.

By the way, I'm not going to bother doing your homework again. If you don't know what progressives in the US stand for, you can google it. It's not hard to find out what the common leftist positions are about stuff, such as racial issues in the US and how they propose fix them. Go read Alternet or Think Progress, go listen to the Young Turks, go to the Majority Report. Then you'll get a basic idea on what their positions are.

Ultimately I just want to say that I'm not particularly in favor of mass refugee resettlement no matter what their faith is. Sure SOME could be taken, but it is not realistic and it's actually a higher tax burden than simply creating safe zones in Syria which Trump also wants, so it's not like he's just letting them die, America isn't that heartless, but it also needs to protect itself. It would also help to stop antagonizing Assad. He doesn't need to be our enemy. Please explain to me why he "must go" all of a sudden?

Yup, Trump is an idiot. And he wants to turn the US into Saudi Arabia or Iran. The irony.

If you make that comparison you prove that you don't understand how Saudi Arabia and Iran's political systems actually work.

Or America's for that matter. America was not a theocracy even before it. Totally hysterical.

The Johnson Amendment simply prohibits non-profit organizations (501(c)(3) as they are called) from opposing or endorsing political candidates, that's it.

So yes churches would be able to endorse a candidate otherwise (doesn't mean he wins, they're not literally voting on your behalf so they can't override the will of the people), but so can militant atheist organizations, so can Anita Sarkeesian and her crazy far left organization. It's all balanced out just as before and just as it is now.

Isn't the point of this to turn the US into a theocracy?

For politicians, churches being allowed to fund them is just another way to get money for campaign and votes at election time. For churches it's a way to get more power. It's what corporations do now. Once politicians backed by churches are elected, they'll start introducing laws based on the bible. Non-christians will be persecuted, that's what organised religions do. That's what's happening in a lot of Muslim countries, like Saudi Arabia where law for all citizens, including those that don't believe in Islam, is derived from Islam.

Mind you, this has been happening in the US for quite some time. That's why you get this war on science and personal freedom. Trusting that it'll somehow magically balance out is naive. Uneducated and brainwashed from child populations can't see through religion's bullshit. A well organised country shouldn't allow for charlatans and conmen to exploit citizens.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Just pointing out the facts. Actual constitutional lawyers thought it was worth suing over and a judge used it as part of their reasoning for the stay.

ACLU lawyers are not by any means agenda free. Nothing wrong with having an agenda, but you should disclose it rather than pretend to be objective and totally non-partisan. People can then make up their own minds who's correct or not, but they're not by any means a reliable authority. Do your own homework. For example I'm right-wing. Somewhere on that spectrum anyway, not really a cookie cutter though. ACLU are far left, ("progressive" if you prefer that term) yet they aren't identified as such, they don't identify themselves as such in fact they deny it, so they always come across as impartial and an absolute authority on all the issues they talk about.

I never claimed them as an authority on anything or agenda free (who would think anything is agenda free?). I simply pointed out that Constitutional lawyers are suing on the grounds that the ban violates the Establishment Clause and a judged seemed to agree.

Tree wrote:Here is an article for example sympathetic to illegal immigration and endorsing the idea that calling illegal immigrants illegal immigrants is somehow wrong. This is not the kind of stuff a non-partisan would write. In fact the idea that borders aren't important is a very far left view.

Numerous international human rights documents firmly estab­lish the principle that no human being can be “illegal”

Why are you trying to make a mountain out of this molehill? They think it is better to refer to immigrants as undocumented, you think it is better to call them illegal. In the end, we are all talking about the same thing. Why fight over semantics? Are they not free to decide their own policies? Beyond that, I know a lot of Libertarians that would agree that the boarder is not that important of a thing.

Tree wrote:The ACLU holds to the narrative that the problems in the US black community are exclusively or predominantly inflicted by a racist system keeping them down for example through disproportionate incarceration. Again this is not a universal and non-partisan view, it's a leftist view. And frankly I think it's a racism of low expectations but that's a topic for another time. The point is it's not agenda free.

Tree wrote:The ACLU supports gay marriage, supports abortion in all circumstances, even supports polygamy. These are positions of the left. Even if you agree with them, or somewhat agree with them you have to admit that these are not neutral stances to take and it's widely disputed that these are protected by the Constitution. Even the Supreme Court couldn't pass it with unanimous votes and then you have to factor in that some judges also have an agenda so they will interpret parts of the Constitution in a way that the founders never intended it to be interpreted.

This is something I have always found funny. Why are those positions of the Left? In the end, all of those come down to individual rights, mainly the right to do what one wants with their own body. One would think that people on the Right would be all for them, since they support (or at least pay lip service) to personal freedoms. Besides religious objections and outright pseudoscience, there seems to be no good objections to those things.

Tree wrote:Curiously the ACLU never fights for property rights or the free market, being able to run your business as you see fit provided you aren't scamming or hurting people and keeping most of the money you earn by ensuring taxes stay low.

Tree wrote:The ACLU is against the 2nd amendment and doesn't believe you have the right to own a gun.

Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right.

And yes they unironically have a page called "DEFENDING YOUR RIGHTS". Not your gun rights though.

That is mud on their face. The Constitution and Bill of Rights pertain to individual rights. They are in the wrong about that one.

Tree wrote:The stay only applies to people with valid visas who were flying in just as Trump signed the executive order. That's maybe a bit of a gray area. The order is still in place though. So if you haven't boarded a flight by now, you're way out of luck for the next few months.

The stay is only a partial block to the broader executive order, with the judge stopping short of a broader ruling on its constitutionality.

ISIS and similar groups have killed large a number of Muslims, but not necessarily because they're Muslim rather because they're simply in the way to power. Unless they're not Sunni I guess, so okay I would agree with that, they probably do kill a lot of Shia. Which also leads to the question of why the hell isn't Iran expected to take them in? They would feel right at home since it would be a more compatible culture to resettle in.

First off, I never said Iran should not be expected to help. I think everyone should help out with this, by doing so it would lighten the burden for everyone. The trick is getting them to agree to that.

Second, how do you distinguish that ISIS is killing Muslims for power, but everyone else because they are non-Muslims? It honestly seems easier to explain that they are killing everyone for power and using any excuse to justify it. That does seem like splitting hairs on my part. However, I am glad that we can agree that ISIS is killing everyone for many reasons, not just religion.

Tree wrote:Most victims of Chinese communists were Chinese. They weren't trying to exterminate their own people though, they just wanted control over the country so they had to terrorize and kill dissidents. They also had really bad agricultural policies.

And if you don't like Breitbart, you can follow the other links over there and run it into the google translator.

Two-thirds of the Syrian Christians have left the country, deplored Wednesday in Geneva the Chaldean bishop of Aleppo, Monsignor Antoine Audo, at a press conference at the UN headquarters in Geneva.

In total, Syrian Christians have grown from 1.5 million to some 500,000 in five years of conflict, he added.In Aleppo, the second city of Syria devastated by the fighting, there were 160,000 and there are only 40,000. These Christians are gathered in the areas controlled by the government, according to him.

A majority of Syrians are still in favor of President Bashar al-Assad who deserves "respect," added the Chaldean Bishop of Aleppo, who is convinced that a solution can not be imposed from outside. According to him, 80% of all the Christians of the country would support President Assad in case of reelection."Even the Sunnis would vote Assad," he added, pointing out that Christians "are not persecuted."

In front of the press, Bishop Audo denounced the "Western propaganda" against Bashar al-Assad that it does not however disclaim any responsibility. But according to him, "armed groups do not have the support of the people"."Syria must continue with or without Bashar al-Assad," he said. The three cathedrals of Aleppo were almost completely destroyed and hundreds of people were abducted and then released into Chaldean villages.

In Aleppo, the truce in force since February 27 has allowed "some relief" and to bring water and electricity that had been missing for about six months. Come to Geneva for a peace campaign launched by Caritas, Bishop Audo, who is also president of Caritas Syria, was to meet with the president of the UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria Paulo Sergio Pinheiro.

Thanks for the information. I am actually very ashamed of my ignorance on this issue. That is some very horrible stuff. However, I will say you should probably avoid reading Bretbart in the future. They are on my favorite debunking websites Beyond Doubtful List.

It should be noted that those who didn't pay or couldn't pay were killed. In any case, convert, pay up or be killed isn't a meaningful choice.

You are completely right about that. Horrible stuff.

Tree wrote:Also, not hard to google "Christian persecution in Syria" or Iraq or whatever your place of interest is. This is the first and last time I'm doing your homework.

Doing my homework? You made a claim to knowledge, you back it up with evidence. Claims made without evidence can and will be dismissed without evidence.

Tree wrote:

In addition, Sunni Muslims would not see the other Muslims as "True Muslims", thus they would be in the same boat. Beyond that, does that mean you think we should take in refugees if we could sort out the Muslims?

The only problem is that there is no way to sort them out and America has already had problems with integrating Muslims given the disproportionate terrorism coming from that community. It's a huge cultural gap that will probably never be closed in our life time.

Where have we had problems integrating Muslims? In addition, I thought you were okay with Trump prioritizing in minority religions (please correct me if I am wrong)? It seems this Administration at least believes they can sort out the Muslims even if you do not.

Tree wrote:Also it's just not realistic to take them all in. If they're that numerous and they're serious about combating ISIS, surely they can fight them back? Christians don't even have the numbers to fight back and both ISIS and non-ISIS rebels hate them. They're screwed.

Who said we should take them all in? I am sure minds greater than ours have thought about just how many refugees can be taken in by the U.S. without causing damage to our economy. I feel that we should at least meet this burden, since we started all of these problems with our invasions of Iraq, which destabilized the area.

The vetting process can only search for information already known - which is limited and even harder to access since Assad has no incentive to provide America that information. Remember, we've made an enemy out of him because in Obama's infinite brilliance he decided that Assad has to go, even though he's actually not a jihadist, he's just a dictator keeping the jihadists in check from completely taking over Syria. So why do you think he's going to give you any information that is accurate to help you sort out moderates from extremists? As if that's even possible, he doesn't even know it all himself, he ain't omniscient.

Well, I will say that I have far more faith in the system of vetting and humanity than you do. I honestly do believe that people should be treated as innocent until proven guilty.

Tree wrote:And what about people who maybe aren't terrorists but would like a Sharia based system. Totally incompatible with the American way of life. Sharia law is the exact opposite of the Constitution. In order to have social cohesion you need at least some common values as well as loyalty to the country.

The same way we handle Christians that want Biblical Laws. They are taken to court and defeated on Constitutional grounds. There is no way to force them to abandon those beliefs, but they cannot make them laws of the land.

I provide an article written by an actual journalist and you cite Atheism-is-Unstoppable after that long diatribe about the ACLU being biased? Please. He is good for a laugh, not so much as a citation.

Also compare homicide rates within Germany vs. homicide rates within Syria or Iraq. What makes you believe that bringing in millions of refugees with virtually no filter as Germany has done not skew the crime rates when you're moving large groups from high crime countries to lower crime countries? Especially when many of them won't even get a job since they're barely literate in their own language. What's your alternative? A permanent class of 1 million welfare dependent people? That's not fair and it's even worse if you do that in America which isn't based on being dependent on government but about bettering yourself through your own means. People don't suddenly change just because they move from one geographical region to another. Bad habits, regressive attitudes, hatred of Christians, Jews and everyone else you're importing all of that too when you have no filter and no way to make one. You think people from two totally opposite cultures with opposite value systems are totally interchangeable but they're not.

As I pointed out above, the U.S. is not bringing in people un-vetted. Thus, if Germany is bringing refugees in un-vetted, that is their problem and mistake. Their crime-rate, cannot be compared to ours based on that fact. That would also be the case with the welfare system as well. Does Germany allow people to live on it permanently? That seems like their problem as well and not one that can be compared to the U.S., as you pointed out. As Pfeifer is quoted in the article, "Whether we will continue to live safely in the future depends on how we teach our rules to these often angry and frustrated youths, who come from very macho cultures. They need to learn that women are not to be preyed upon, you don't hit children and you don't respond to being disrespected with violence,". Like I said before, as a humanist, I will bet on humanity.

Tree wrote:By the way, I'm not going to bother doing your homework again. If you don't know what progressives in the US stand for, you can google it. It's not hard to find out what the common leftist positions are about stuff, such as racial issues in the US and how they propose fix them. Go read Alternet or Think Progress, go listen to the Young Turks, go to the Majority Report. Then you'll get a basic idea on what their positions are.

Where did this red herring come from? Beyond that, I have never heard of the Majority Report, but I would not use Alternet, Thinking Progress, or the Young Turks as a source either.

Tree wrote:Ultimately I just want to say that I'm not particularly in favor of mass refugee resettlement no matter what their faith is. Sure SOME could be taken, but it is not realistic and it's actually a higher tax burden than simply creating safe zones in Syria which Trump also wants, so it's not like he's just letting them die, America isn't that heartless, but it also needs to protect itself.

Than we are in agreement. I am also not for mass refugee resettlement (in one country). As I pointed out above, if all countries that could would, there would not be as many. You are also for some, thus, what is that number and what are you basing it on? Like I pointed out above, I am sure greater minds than ours have thought about this and determined the amount that the U.S. could take in without causing huge stress on our economy.

Tree, you mention that Trump puts his countrymen first. I find that hard to believe. There is nobody that Trump puts before himself.

This is a guy who sends out his press secretary to baldy lie about how many people came to see HIM. As though that is even an issue worth discussing. The man is a narcissistic megalomaniac.

Given that his cabinet appears to represent the end goal of neo libralism. He has someone from fucking Exxon Mobil in government. The former chairman of Goldman fucking Sachs too. These are corporate interests sitting in the fucking white house, they've cut out the middle man. You think these are people who are going to represent your interests? You think this is draining the swamp?

1. The people he appoints are not entirely free to pursue their agenda, they have to do what Trump says.2. If you're talking about Steven Mnuchin, he's an ex-Goldman Sachs guy. And by ex- I mean he left it in 2002 so that's a very long time.3. There's a 5-year lobby ban after they leave office now.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:I never claimed them as an authority on anything or agenda free (who would think anything is agenda free?). I simply pointed out that Constitutional lawyers are suing on the grounds that the ban violates the Establishment Clause and a judged seemed to agree.

There have been court challenges from multiple sources in the last few weeks with some success, but nothing permanent yet. Getting a temporary restraining order is far easier than a permanent repeal. If he makes a new executive order with a clear exception for legal residents, any defense should be air tight. I think I've explained why.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Why are you trying to make a mountain out of this molehill? They think it is better to refer to immigrants as undocumented, you think it is better to call them illegal. In the end, we are all talking about the same thing. Why fight over semantics? Are they not free to decide their own policies? Beyond that, I know a lot of Libertarians that would agree that the boarder is not that important of a thing.

If someone wants to call them "undocumented" that's fine, but they shouldn't force others to, that's my point. Illegal works fine and trying to pretend that it's like racial slur is disingenuous. You don't choose your race, but you can choose to obey the law and not cross the border of another country illegally.

Speaking of libertarians, I have libertarian sympathies but I'm not a libertarian, I think it's a naive ideology in many of its incarnations and that many libertarians either don't have a good grasp of rights-responsibilities or actively wish to avoid responsibility for their actions. Although I would argue it's 100% consistent for a libertarian to refuse open border policies as long as welfare exists, because that means immigrants who don't succeed become a burden on the government.

Consider for example a law, parts 1 2 3 are good for you, part 4 completely abolishes the age of consent and provides absolutely no viable alternative. Would you support that? I don't think so.

No need to take a bad bundle just because you agree with some of it.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:This is something I have always found funny. Why are those positions of the Left? In the end, all of those come down to individual rights

It's nowhere near as simple as just a matter of individual rights. Some on the right fully agree with you, usually libertarians, some partially agree but it's still something that originates from the left, even if a few rightists come to agree with it, or in Trump's case doesn't think it's a big deal when it comes to gay marriage.

Abortion involves a 2nd human life. I'd argue first term abortion is okay but not after that because the baby starts to develop a brain and become aware on some level of its existence.

Gay marriage isn't just individual rights. It's a whole package with some aspects being individual rights, some being basically a welfare program for lifelong couples and the rest having implications on the way children are born raised in our society. Seeing that as the naturally small government position is rather naive. There are arguments either way. The only thing I will agree on is that a small limited government should not try to ban same sex relations or prevent them from living together. It doesn't need to give them special tax breaks or even allow them to adopt if that is not in the interest of the child. You cannot claim a right to children that aren't your own, it's just a privilege.

I lean to the side of some form of civil union because I don't think an inherently infertile union is completely interchangeable with a standard opposite sex union. I also don't think natural parents are interchangeable with strangers. This idea that everyone has a right to a child, even if they're unmarried, even if they can't conceive a child is pretty bizarre to me. Children are not pets, they're a serious responsibility.

If you think it's all about religious opposition and "pseudoscience" I don't think you've been paying attention. And just a note on the pseudoscience part, it's a fact that that children are better off with their natural mommy and natural daddy, not mommy and a stranger, not daddy and a stranger, not 2 or 3 or 10 strangers. The nuclear family is important and should be preserved whenever possible. Don't believe it? Ask people who've ever had a stepdad or stepmom, far more drama and abuse on average, you just don't tend to connect the same way with children who aren't your own. Gay marriage only opens to door for more children being fatherless and motherless, not by accident, but this time by design and I think that's going to have a lot of negative outcomes in the long run, the same way the normalization of single moms has. Society as a whole has not been taking marriage seriously for decades with terrible outcomes on children caught in these homes and this trend needs to be reversed, not made worse. One way would be to reform how welfare is done so that it doesn't incentivize single parenthood to begin with. The government is not your substitute husband or wife.

It's also just not very optimal. Sorry but two women will never mold a young boy into a real man, you need a father figure for that.

Plenty of secular minded leaders and classically liberal thinkers in history and at no point, other than the last few decades, have they ever suggested that marriage needs to be redefined in that way. It's not correct to link to religion. Sure there is that part, but it's not exclusive, there are many secular conservatives as well as religious conservatives who articulate this stuff in secular terms.

Anyway that's my view, I'm sure you can find the odd rightist who disagrees and I'm sure you can find a rightist who's more radical and doesn't even want civil unions, my point is that it's not as simple as it seems.

Tree wrote:Gay marriage isn't just individual rights. It's a whole package with some aspects being individual rights, some being basically a welfare program for lifelong couples and the rest having implications on the way children are born raised in our society. Seeing that as the naturally small government position is rather naive. There are arguments either way. The only thing I will agree on is that a small limited government should not try to ban same sex relations or prevent them from living together. It doesn't need to give them special tax breaks or even allow them to adopt if that is not in the interest of the child. You cannot claim a right to children that aren't your own, it's just a privilege.

I lean to the side of some form of civil union because I don't think an inherently infertile union is completely interchangeable with a standard opposite sex union. I also don't think natural parents are interchangeable with strangers. This idea that everyone has a right to a child, even if they're unmarried, even if they can't conceive a child is pretty bizarre to me. Children are not pets, they're a serious responsibility.

If you think it's all about religious opposition and "pseudoscience" I don't think you've been paying attention. And just a note on the pseudoscience part, it's a fact that that children are better off with their natural mommy and natural daddy, not mommy and a stranger, not daddy and a stranger, not 2 or 3 or 10 strangers. The nuclear family is important and should be preserved whenever possible. Don't believe it? Ask people who've ever had a stepdad or stepmom, far more drama and abuse on average, you just don't tend to connect the same way with children who aren't your own. Gay marriage only opens to door for more children being fatherless and motherless, not by accident, but this time by design and I think that's going to have a lot of negative outcomes in the long run, the same way the normalization of single moms has. Society as a whole has not been taking marriage seriously for decades with terrible outcomes on children caught in these homes and this trend needs to be reversed, not made worse. One way would be to reform how welfare is done so that it doesn't incentivize single parenthood to begin with. The government is not your substitute husband or wife.

I'm willing to bet a significant part of the gay marriage proponents' beef with anti-gay marriage proponents isn't children per se. How would you square this with infertile heterosexual couples? They can't have children any more than the homosexual couples can. If it's children you're worried about, why do they get a pass?

It's also just not very optimal. Sorry but two women will never mold a young boy into a real man, you need a father figure for that.

Define "real man".

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

The very thing that gives us humans our advanced cognitive abilities can also be our greatest weakness.

Akamia wrote:I'm willing to bet a significant part of the gay marriage proponents' beef with anti-gay marriage proponents isn't children per se.

It's fairly commonly mentioned actually and I'm hearing less of the "God said it" on conservative talk radio too.

Akamia wrote:How would you square this with infertile heterosexual couples? They can't have children any more than the homosexual couples can. If it's children you're worried about, why do they get a pass?

At the time marriage was created there was no reliable contraception and no way to tell if someone is infertile. You could be damn sure two guys didn't produce anything but a guy and a girl - not so obvious. If you fucked, it was expected that a child would come eventually so better that the child be raised in a stable household. This is maybe an imperfection in the concept of marriage, but expanding it to an entire class of people that are 100% infertile and have no chance of ever changing that is not going to solve anything. It was never what marriage was intended for, a new distinct union is needed which is why I've said there should be some form of civil union.

How I would square this is that I would get rid of any welfare aspects of marriage (the marriage would not be annulled though) if it doesn't result in a child within a reasonable number of years.

Here's the thing, what is marriage (I'm asking you culturally speaking, not legally speaking, what does it represent in our culture?) if not a public statement that:

1. you intend to be with someone for the rest of your life2. start a family3. have children

So if you're not going to take that commitment seriously or you just can't, then why exactly do you deserve special privileges, like maybe a more advantageous taxation system or some other special program (varies from country to country so it's not a one-size-fits-all) that single people or unmarried boyfriend/girlfriend don't get? What are you producing for society to even remotely warrant those benefits?

I'm not particularly in favor of welfare to begin with, but if it has to exist, it better be for a damn good reason. Ensuring the continuation of the country perhaps, helping people get laid, no, that's not a good use of government resources, they can do that on their own, they don't need our help or our "blessing" and out of marriage sex hasn't been illegal or even taboo in a looong time except in shitty third world dictatorships, very common now, no need to ask daddy government for permission.

Would people be okay for example if I opened up a charity but then chose to ran it like a private corporation, keeping most of the money for myself through various loopholes while donating very little if anything to actual charity? Wouldn't you call that a sham charity? By the way there are already plenty of actual legal restrictions to marriage, consent alone doesn't cut it. The most obvious is that you can't marry a total stranger just to help him emigrate to your country. In such a case you would be expected to prove that you're a real couple and charges may be filed if you can't and your partner deported. Blood relatives can't marry since they have a good chance to produce unhealthy off-spring. Polygamy is not allowed generally, and even cultures that have it still restrict it so you can't just marry the entire town or a ridiculously large number of people.

How do you view marriage? And is there a reason why the same term should apply to two very different unions? One is maybe not 100% but 99% likely to create human life, the other 0%.

Would you be okay if all types of legal organizations, whether it's (worker) unions, corporations (listed or unlisted on the stock market), charities, churches, embassies etc. were all lumped under one big legal label of "people organization" and they all functioned by the exact same laws and tax codes no matter their purpose? I'm not saying your side doesn't have a point, but this opposition to civil unions is what I'm trying to understand.

“Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there.”“It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.”

Strong words there.

Akamia wrote:Define "real man".

Confident, assertive, controls his emotions, strong, kicks ass... defensively I mean, being the aggressor dishonors you, deals with his problems, stands up for himself, can make the tough decisions and generally doesn't act like a wimp.

Anyway there's another reason why men should molded to be masculine: 1. that's how women like their men, can't prepare boys for life if you don't prepare them for dating life 2. who's going to defend your society if you have a generation of weaklings?

And don't get me wrong, the draft should include the women too since equal rights should come with equal obligations, but let's be real, it will still be a disproportionate number of men doing the defending since they're stronger on average physically. Can't avoid that reality no matter how much you preach about equality. Not saying that's not important but we have to acknowledge the differences too. I don't understand people who think getting rid of rigid or unrealistic gender roles or sexist laws = pretending that men and women are always interchangeable. They're not.

1. The people he appoints are not entirely free to pursue their agenda, they have to do what Trump says.2. If you're talking about Steven Mnuchin, he's an ex-Goldman Sachs guy. And by ex- I mean he left it in 2002 so that's a very long time.3. There's a 5-year lobby ban after they leave office now.

You assume that doing what Trump says involves acting in non-corrupt ways. Forgive me if I'm wrong but I don't see an oil executive as wanting to persue environmentally sound measures to protect our ecosystems. Nor do I see an ex Goldman Sachs guy as liable to act against big banking and in favour of working people. Nor do I see Trump as the guy to stop them. Why would he employ them only to not allow them to persue their interests? Trump is an idiot for sure, but I'm sure he could work out that the best way to end corruption in politics is to not have highly suspect people in his cabinet.

I don't see that leaving Goldman Sachs 15 years ago is suddenly going to make you pro your average working American rather than say the financial sector. Do you think none of his friends are still working in that sector? He's there to secure their interests. You don't employ corruptable people in order to end corruption.

On that standard though, who would you hire because you do need financially competent people to do the job done? All I'm saying is I'd rather wait and see what he does. People were criticizing his cabinet even before he was sworn in.

The net effect of the agreement is a reduction of approximately $7 million in compensation owed to Tillerson. Tillerson retired on Dec. 31 with more than 40 years of service with ExxonMobil.

Separate to the agreement with ExxonMobil, Tillerson has also committed to the State Department that, if confirmed, he would sell the more than 600,000 shares in ExxonMobil he currently owns.

Speaking of the environment, that no doubt is important, it's also important that the US pursue a different energy policy so it doesn't have to deal with Saudi Arabia all the time should be nr. 1 on the ban list, and you can't live on solar and wind alone, that's fantasy. If you stop using fossil fuels, your civilization will end so we're going to have to get used to at least some pollution existing and regulations on a level that doesn't make it impossible to do business. Let's face it, the cost of excessive regulations is usually passed on the consumer and you see it in the form of higher costs of living and businesses moving over to China. That harms poor people a lot harder than rich people. They won't notice if their electricity bill or fuel bill goes up 200%. For the poor, it's lights off and not owning a vehicle.

I'd love nothing more than to burn that toxic bridge with the Saudis, so if that means drilling at home more or some kind of deal with Russia, anything's better than giving money to a horrible country that funds subversion of the free world under the pretense of "freedom of religion".

If you wanna know just how sinister that country is, consider this, they took no Syrian refugees at all despite close proximity and similar culture but they offered to build them mosques in Europe. That's how much of a sucker they think Europe is and sadly they're right. And that's the kind of suckers you would have gotten with a Hillary presidency. It's time we had a leader that doesn't allow American generosity to be taken advantage of and hopefully that will wake up other countries too. Will Trump succeed, I don't know, but it's not like there were other candidates like him. People complain that Russia influenced the election and wanted Trump to win but completely skip over the fact that other countries also tried to influence the election in favor of Hillary and some of them are worse than Russia. In fact I can't think of any country besides Russia that favored Trump over Hillary.

I'll just shortly highlight two things because I'm not currently inclined to spend more time beyond that on your comment but...

Tree wrote:Here's the thing, what is marriage (I'm asking you culturally speaking, not legally speaking, what does it represent in our culture?) if not a public statement that:

1. you intend to be with someone for the rest of your life2. start a family3. have children

Who determined that marriage makes these statements? As it was pointed out to you, "start a family/have children" is not a requirement of any marriages (and since you think "start a family" and "have children" are two different things, you should really clarify how they are different).Plus, "you intend to be with someone for the rest of your life" was actually "Your father (or head of family) intends you to be with the person he's chosen for you for the rest of your life" for most of history but that is no longer the case. Somehow, proponents of "traditional marriage" always gloss over that part of what marriage traditionally was...

Tree wrote:Confident, assertive, controls his emotions, strong, kicks ass... defensively I mean, being the aggressor dishonors you, deals with his problems, stands up for himself, can make the tough decisions and generally doesn't act like a wimp.

Did you realise that women can be or act all of these? Or are women never and/or should never be confident, assertive, control their emotions, etc.?

What you actually meant when you defined "real man" is that a man should be all of these and have a penis, didn't you?

You're stuck between modern society and the time of "traditional" marriages.

"Slavery is morally ok" - "I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" - Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians

On that standard though, who would you hire because you do need financially competent people to do the job done? All I'm saying is I'd rather wait and see what he does. People were criticizing his cabinet even before he was sworn in.

The net effect of the agreement is a reduction of approximately $7 million in compensation owed to Tillerson. Tillerson retired on Dec. 31 with more than 40 years of service with ExxonMobil.

Separate to the agreement with ExxonMobil, Tillerson has also committed to the State Department that, if confirmed, he would sell the more than 600,000 shares in ExxonMobil he currently owns.

Speaking of the environment, that no doubt is important, it's also important that the US pursue a different energy policy so it doesn't have to deal with Saudi Arabia all the time should be nr. 1 on the ban list, and you can't live on solar and wind alone, that's fantasy. If you stop using fossil fuels, your civilization will end so we're going to have to get used to at least some pollution existing and regulations on a level that doesn't make it impossible to do business. Let's face it, the cost of excessive regulations is usually passed on the consumer and you see it in the form of higher costs of living and businesses moving over to China. That harms poor people a lot harder than rich people. They won't notice if their electricity bill or fuel bill goes up 200%. For the poor, it's lights off and not owning a vehicle.

I'd love nothing more than to burn that toxic bridge with the Saudis, so if that means drilling at home more or some kind of deal with Russia, anything's better than giving money to a horrible country that funds subversion of the free world under the pretense of "freedom of religion".

If you wanna know just how sinister that country is, consider this, they took no Syrian refugees at all despite close proximity and similar culture but they offered to build them mosques in Europe. That's how much of a sucker they think Europe is and sadly they're right. And that's the kind of suckers you would have gotten with a Hillary presidency. It's time we had a leader that doesn't allow American generosity to be taken advantage of and hopefully that will wake up other countries too. Will Trump succeed, I don't know, but it's not like there were other candidates like him. People complain that Russia influenced the election and wanted Trump to win but completely skip over the fact that other countries also tried to influence the election in favor of Hillary and some of them are worse than Russia. In fact I can't think of any country besides Russia that favored Trump over Hillary.

If it is the individual leaving office that would not amount to mucn.

I think the criticisms are founded as Trump proclaimed he was going to drain the swamp of politics, implying he would take steps to decrease the influence of big money. His cabinet appears to be the opposite of that. Should we give things the benefit of the doubt? Maybe. But you can forgive my cynicism. An ex banker in government not acting in the interests of the financial sector? Seems unlikely to me.